Blog 8: The Wall

Source: GDR. “What You Should Know About the Wall.” Sources of European History Since 1900. Ed. Marvin Perry, Matthew Berg, and James Krukones. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 305-309. Print.

Summary:

This brochure was published by the GDR in English in 1962 for foreign distribution, explaining the wall and why it was necessary. It is divided into ten “considerations”, kind of a “Berlin Wall FAQ”.  These are the considerations:

1.       Where, exactly is Berlin situated?

2.       Did the wall fall out of the sky?

3.       Did the wall have to come?

4.       What did the wall prevent?

5.       Was peace really threatened?

6.       Who is walled in?

7.       Who breaks off human contacts?

8.       Does the wall threaten anyone?

9.       Who is aggravating the situation?

10.   Is the wall a gymnastic apparatus?

It ends with a plea to side with the GDR over the wall:

“Decide in favour of the recognition of realities.  Don’t join in the row over the wall.  Perhaps YOU don’t want socialism.  That is your affair.

“But should we not come to an agreement jointly to refrain from doing anything that leads to war and do everything that serves peace?” (309).

My Opinion:

The whole tone of the brochure is extremely defensive and a little angry.  It is not the tone I would have chosen for foreign propaganda because it would make an already skeptical audience further discount anything that is said.  When I hear a defensive-sounding argument I usually characterize the whole thing as desperate and lacking forethought before I even really hear them out.  Also, the government of the GDR basically accepts no responsibility for the wall, making it sound as though they had no choice but to build the wall and were almost forced into it by West Germany.  I don’t think anyone who read this brochure would have found this credible.

I found it very interesting that the prevention of war was the main reason behind the wall listed in this brochure.  The comment is made, “For the first time in German history the match which was to set fire to another war was extinguished before it had fulfilled its purpose” (308).   This is illuminating.  The GDR is trying to set themselves above all the rest of German history as alone having the courage to prevent war, especially in contrast to the Nazi regime which glorified war.

In the next section the authors quote an Indian journalist who clearly was supportive of the GDR’s propaganda: “It (the protective wall of the GDR) served the cause of world peace since it halted the advance of the German neo-Hitlerites toward the East, forced the world to recognize the reality of the division of Germany and thus supports negotiation” (308).  I don’t know very much about India’s relationship to the GDR, or why this journalist had to write such highly-propagandized material.  I can’t tell if he is calling all of West Germany “neo-Hitlerites” or is he referring to some specific groups?  It’s kind of funny to say that physically separating two groups supports negotiation, as negotiation is usually about bring people together and not keeping them apart.

Under the sixth consideration (“Who is walled in?”), it reads: “According to the exceedingly intelligent explanations of the West Berlin Senate we have walled ourselves in and are living in a concentration camp.”  In the next paragraph it talks about the armament of the GDR and then comments, “What do you think of a concentration camp whose inmates have weapons in their hands?” (308).  I don’t think that such heavy sarcasm was wise, especially since the West Berliners had a point.  The people behind the wall were trapped—they were being killed if they tried to escape!  Also, they are glossing over the real “inmates”—the average citizens, who were not armed, and did not have a choice in the matter.

Overall, I found this piece repugnant as it treated the readers with contempt and was overly propagandized.  I don’t think that this brochure would have served its purpose, as it did not get off its soap box long enough to make any resounding points.